Whether it be the US, Russia, China, or any other major military force, all employ space capabilities to some extent.

As a result of this dependence, some militaries are developing the tools to deny their adversaries the use and benefit of space systems. These capabilities come in several different categories, but they all share one common feature: they are threats to space systems. This is not unexpected.

Much the same as aircraft and anti-aircraft weapons, it was only a matter of time before military actors began developing the means to neutralise advantages gained from space.

Yet while this technology has previously been limited to a few players, new innovations in asymmetric warfare are quickly changing the dynamics of what might be conflict in space.

Moreover, there is a very small possibility (and it is highly remote) that some capabilities be put in space that can target objects in the atmosphere or on the surface of the Earth. These weapon systems would represent a threat from space systems.

As unlikely as this possibility might be, it is sufficiently real for some states who see counterspace weapons as possible insurance against attempts at ‘dominance’ in outer space.

Daniel A. Porras

The Secure World Foundation (SWF) — a think-tank based in Washington, DC — maintains a global counterspace capabilities assessment. This open-source document uses publicly available information to show which countries are developing what capabilities.

The principal actors pursuing such capabilities are the US, Russia, China and India. While the assessment includes a few other outliers that might have the building blocks for counterspace capabilities (i.e. Israel, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea), recent events indicate that there are more countries now actively seeking ‘weapons in space’, including France and Japan.

There are four main types of counterspace capabilities. The first is ‘kinetic’, namely those that use physical force to cause damage to a satellite. This includes anti-satellite missiles (like the one recently used by India) or even co-orbital drones. These drones are highly manoeuvrable craft that can repair, refuel or even remove satellites from orbit. Such tools can be used for beneficial purposes, like debris removal, or possibly to attack satellites.

The second type of counterspace capability is ‘non-kinetic’, which use high-powered energy to cause disruption or damage to satellites. At present, several countries are developing lasers that could be used in this way, including the US, Russia, China and France.

In the 1980s, then-US President Ronald Reagan launched an initiative called Star Wars, which consisted of satellites with missile interceptors that could destroy ICBMs in orbit.

The main problem with kinetic and non-kinetic weapons is that when they damage or destroy a satellite, they also create debris, which does not necessarily come back down to Earth right away. As one expert once told me, it is like having a war in which the bullets never stop flying.

The other two categories of capabilities are less destructive but are much more prevalent. Electronic counterspace capabilities, which includes jamming and spoofing, is easily accessible to many actors, including non-state actors. The same can be said for cyber capabilities, which can be deployed for espionage, surveillance, or even destruction of space systems.

One of the major concerns with these two categories of capabilities is that there is no consensus around when ‘interference’ becomes an attack. This is particularly worrying as NATO just announced plans to declare that an ‘attack’ on a satellite is enough to trigger collective self-defence. There is no indication whether there is consensus among NATO members as to what is considered an attack on a space object, nor whether that same view is shared with any other countries.

Threats ‘from’ space systems

While the counterspace capabilities listed above describe current threats ‘to’ space systems, there is another challenge that features often in space security talks, namely threats ‘from’ space systems.

These are different because rather than targeting space objects, these capabilities would be able to target objects in the atmosphere or on the ground. At present, no country has ever even hinted at plans to deploy such weapons, except the US.

In the 1980s, then-US President Ronald Reagan launched an initiative called Star Wars, which consisted of satellites with missile interceptors that could destroy ICBMs in orbit. This idea has long been refuted as being about as technically or economically feasible as deploying ‘pink dragons’ in space.

Nevertheless, space-based missile interceptors are being discussed by the US once again, albeit at a very superficial level. The concern here is that space-based missile defence is a pretext to deploy missiles that can strike surface targets. And while many experts cite the extreme remoteness of the possibility of such a weapon system ever being deployed, the mere perception of a threat is creating real challenges in multilateral discussions.

Multilateral efforts to mitigate threats

UN member states acknowledged the growing challenges to space security decades ago, yet there is little progress on this issue. States are generally divided into two camps. Some (mostly Western, developed states) are concerned about threats ‘to’ their space systems, and want voluntary measures to provide transparency in space. This includes measures like launch notifications, sharing orbital data and publishing national space policies.

Others (led by Russia and China but also including most of the rest of the world), are not opposed to voluntary measures but would prefer to see a treaty, which is legally binding. These states are also concerned by the possibility (albeit still a remote one) that someone might one day put weapons in space that can threaten people on the ground. For these states, only a legally binding instrument will suffice.

For the moment, there does not seem to be much room for consensus. The two camps in space security discussions continue to hold firm on their positions. One option for moving forward might be to focus on specific issues that affect all, such as the testing of destructive anti-satellite technology that creates debris.

However, more ambitious solutions will likely continue to be out of reach, particularly if space-based missile defence continues to feature in the background of multilateral discussions without being directly addressed.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/big-power-conflicts-increasingly-taking-place-outer-space/feed/0The Push for Peace-From the Global Village to the Global Neighborhoodhttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/push-peace-global-village-global-neighborhood/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=push-peace-global-village-global-neighborhood
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/push-peace-global-village-global-neighborhood/#respondWed, 11 Sep 2019 17:54:13 +0000Siddharth Chatterjeehttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163232From the ashes of a tragedy that wiped out almost 90% of the city of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, an institute called the Hiroshima Peacebuilders Center (HPC) rose like a phoenix of hope that is pioneering the creation of a global pool of peacebuilders. It is driven by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development […]

From the ashes of a tragedy that wiped out almost 90% of the city of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, an institute called the Hiroshima Peacebuilders Center (HPC) rose like a phoenix of hope that is pioneering the creation of a global pool of peacebuilders. It is driven by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development declaration that “there can be no sustainable development without peace and no peace without sustainable development.”

Hiroshima underwent miraculous post-war reconstruction after World War II, and it epitomizes speed, innovation, technology and efficiency which marks the Japanese character of utter discipline and loyalty to the vision. An architectural and engineering feat of reconstruction.

Today HPC supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, trains professional peacebuilders to assist war – torn societies and they are doing a remarkable job. I have seen this first hand and I have had the privilege of facilitating two mid-career courses which brings together Japanese and non-Japanese United Nations professionals who work in different conflict affected parts of the world.

The UN Secretary General Mr Antonio Guterres once made a profound remark- “the world is in pieces and we need world peace”. With over 65 million people displaced, due to conflict, instability, climate shocks and sheer degrading poverty, the message from the UN Secretary General is a clarion call to action. Japan has stepped up. In fact, Japan’s pacifist constitution may hold the key to a world free of conflict, violence and instability.

At the HPC, various programmes are being implemented to develop practical knowledge, skills and experience in peacebuilding and development among civilians, an important contribution towards transforming conflict-prone countries into peaceful nations engaged in the pursuit of SDG 16.

Having seen both worlds – as a former combat veteran and later as an international civil servant, where I have been working to bring dignity to people ravaged by war in various countries – I know the importance of such institutions. For instance, the many years of my UN career spent in Somalia, South Sudan Iraq, Darfur, between 1997 to date, will always remain a poignant reminder of the disparate harm that women and children are predisposed to whenever one form or other of humanitarian crisis arises.

With recent technological advances on one hand giving a leg-up, and on the other rolling back progress on the United Nations Charter’s vision of getting the peoples of the world ‘to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours‘, institutions such as HPC are increasingly needed.

The strings of guilt have continued to pull at the collective global heart after the events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In subsequent years, the world has drafted the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as numerous treaties and conventions, all seeking to ensure global peace.

By telescoping distance and time, scientific advances have given us the ‘global village’, yet the more people have of things that bring them together, the more they have tended to invent others that divide them.

One such development is the indisputable evidence that all of humanity is vulnerable in current rates of ecological degradation. However, while the web of interdependence continues to thicken, debates about what needs to be done and by whom rages, delaying consensus on remedial action.

The reasons we need citizens to drive global neighbourhood are legion: maintaining peace and order, expanding economic activity, combating pandemic diseases, deterring terrorists and sharing scarce resources are just a few of them.

We cannot have any illusions about the scope of the challenge ahead. As we move towards working with others, clashes between the familiar and the different are expected. Stresses will result from people having to come to terms with new circumstances.

A transformation of the mindset will be a key driver of the triple nexus of peace, security and development as the world seeks to draft a post-conflict agenda. To achieve this, a critical mass of leaders who can push countries to adapt universal norms of good neighborhoods is needed, which is what institutions like HPC are helping to build.

While human survival and resilience against new diseases must depend on scientific discoveries, there must be a part of humanity that checks the temptation to turn those same discoveries into ever more efficient killing machines.

More international institutions that work to create a generation of citizens as the dynamos of the vehicle of peacebuilding need to be established. That one of the leaders towards that vision is a region that carries the scars of the worst devastation caused by war provides inspiration that a moral revolution is possible, even as the scientific revolution continues.

Japan’s former Prime Minster and Nobel laureate Mr. Eisaku Sato once said, “Japan is the only country in the world to have suffered the ravages of atomic bombing. That experience left an indelible mark on the hearts of our people, making them passionately determined to renounce all wars”.

Siddharth Chatterjee is the United Nations Resident Coordinator to Kenya.

Climate change is already altering the face of our planet. Research shows that we need to put all our efforts over the coming decade to limit warming to 1.5°C and mitigate the catastrophic risks posed by increased droughts, floods, and extreme weather events.

But our actions will not be effective if they do not include measures to ensure social justice, equality and a gender perspective. So, how do we integrate gender equality in climate change actions?

The impact of climate change affects women and girls disproportionately due to existing gender inequalities. It also threatens to undermine socio-economic gains made over previous decades.

With limited or no access to land and other resources including finance, technology and information, women and girls suffer more in the aftermath of natural disasters and bear increased burdens in domestic and care work.

Women and girls have also seen their water collection time increased and firewood and fodder collection efforts thwarted in the face of droughts, floods and deforestation, occupying a significant portion of their time that could have been used for their education or leisure.

This is not only theory. For example, women and children accounted for more than 96 per cent of those impacted by the flash floods in Solomon Islands in 2014 and in Myanmar, women accounted for 61 percent of fatalities caused by Cyclone Nargis in 2008.

Women and girls also remain marginalized in decision-making spheres — from the community level to parliaments to international climate negotiations. Global climate finance for mitigation and adaptation programmes remain out of reach for women and girls because of their lack of knowledge and capacity to tap into these resources.

Despite these challenges, women and girls play a critical role in key climate related sectors and have developed adaptation and resilience-building strategies and mitigation techniques, such as driving the demand for renewable energy at the household and community levels for lighting, cooking and productive use solutions that the international community must now support.

Women are holders of traditional farming methods, first responders in crises situations, founders of cooperatives, entrepreneurs of green energy, scientists and inventors, and decision-makers with respect to the use of natural resources.

Women comprise an average of 43 percent of the agricultural work force in developing countries1 and manage 90% of all household water and fuel-wood needs in Africa. Some studies have shown that if women were afforded equal access to productive resources as men, their agricultural outputs would exceed men’s by 7 to 23 percent. It is therefore imperative to embrace and scale-up the initiatives of the 51 per cent of the world’s population.

In recent times, women and girls have used their knowledge and experience to lead in mitigation efforts. From developing apps to track and reduce the carbon emitted as a result of individual consumption, to reducing food by connecting neighbors, cafes, and local shops to share leftover and unsold food 2.

Young women scientists, like South-African teenager Kiara Nirghin, are making a difference in the fight against climate change. They are building on the legacies of women and girls such as Nobel Prize winner Wangari Maathai, who empowered communities to manage their natural resources in a sustainable way.

At the same time, UNDP and UN Women have been collaborating to advance gender equality and women’s leadership on climate change. For example, in Ecuador, the two UN agencies have teamed up with the government to support the inclusion of gender in the country’s climate action plans.

UNDP and UN Women have also collaborated globally to ensure that gender remains a key factor when world leaders make critical decisions on climate change.

If policies and projects take into account women’s particular roles, needs and contributions to climate action and support women’s empowerment, there will be a greater possibility to limit warming to 1.5°C in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. We must continue to engage women and women’s organizations, learning from their experiences on the ground to build the evidence for good practices and help replicate more inclusive climate actions.

The UN Secretary-General’s Climate Action Summit in New York on September 23, 2019 is a unique opportunity to elevate at the highest level the need for substantive participation of women and girls in efforts against climate change.

At the Summit, there will be several initiatives put forth to address climate change, including one focusing on gender equality. The initiative recognizes the differential impact of climate change on women and girls, and seeks support for their leadership as a way to make climate actions more effective.

It calls for the rights, differentiated needs and contributions of women and girls to be integrated into all actions, including those related to climate finance, energy, industry and infrastructure. It promotes support for women and girls in developing innovative tools and participating in mitigation and adaptation efforts and calls for accountability by tracking and reporting progress towards achieving these goals.

For climate action to get more traction and be effective, we need a critical mass of Governments and other stakeholders to sign on to the Climate Action Summit’s gender-specific initiative. The world cannot afford to keep limiting the potential of women and girls in shaping climate actions, as all evidence points towards the benefits of their involvement.

There is already interest by United Nations Member States, as shown in the increased integration of gender considerations in their national climate plans, but a broader movement is needed. We need multi-stakeholder partnerships and engage a critical mass of supporters – governments, UN entities, financial mechanisms, and civil society organizations to support the gender-specific initiative of the SG’s Climate Action Summit.

The time for gender-responsive climate action is now.

1 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), The State of Food and Agriculture: Closing the Gender Gap for Development (Rome: FAO, 2011a).2 Olio, a food-sharing app was founded by women from Sweden, the UK and USA. For more info: https://unfccc.int/climate-action/momentum-for-change/women-for-results/women-leading-a-food-sharing-revolution; One Million Women was founded by a woman in Australia to get one million women to change their lifestyles to mitigate climate change. The group has an app that provides the tools to cut carbon pollution in home energy savings and clean energy options, minimising food waste, reducing over-consumption, investing and divesting (your money) wisely, sustainable fashion, low-impact travel, etc. For more info: https://www.1millionwomen.com.au/

Ulrika Modéer is UNDP’s Assistant Administrator and Director of the Bureau of External Relations and Advocacy, and Anita Bhatia is UN Women’s Deputy Executive Director for Resource Management, Sustainability and Partnerships.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/lets-get-climate-action-traction-gender-equality/feed/0Eritrea Tops Watchlist of World’s Most-Censored Countrieshttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/eritrea-tops-watchlist-worlds-censored-countries/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=eritrea-tops-watchlist-worlds-censored-countries
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/eritrea-tops-watchlist-worlds-censored-countries/#respondTue, 10 Sep 2019 04:21:05 +0000James Reinlhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163191Eritrea has the world’s highest levels of censorship and the most active government in jailing reporters and stifling newspapers, radio and television, a study by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) watchdog says. The authoritarian Horn of Africa nation, which shuttered all independent media in 2001 and currently has some 16 journalists behind bars, is […]

In Eritrea, many of the journalists who were jailed in the 2001 media crackdown remain behind bars, the Committee to Protect Journalists says.
Courtesy: UN Photo

By James ReinlUNITED NATIONS, Sep 10 2019 (IPS)

Eritrea has the world’s highest levels of censorship and the most active government in jailing reporters and stifling newspapers, radio and television, a study by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) watchdog says.

The authoritarian Horn of Africa nation, which shuttered all independent media in 2001 and currently has some 16 journalists behind bars, is followed by North Korea and Turkmenistan as the world’s worst places to work as a reporter, the CPJ says.

“The internet was supposed to make censorship obsolete, but that hasn’t happened,” the group’s executive director Joel Simon said in a statement upon releasing the annual report Tuesday.

“Many of the world’s most censored countries are highly wired, with active online communities. These governments combine old-style brutality with new technology, often purchased from Western companies, to stifle dissent and control the media.”

The top 10 watchlist of countries that “flout international freedom of expression norms and guarantees” also includes Saudi Arabia, China, Vietnam, Iran, Equatorial Guinea, Belarus, and the Caribbean island of Cuba.

In Eritrea, many of the journalists who were jailed in the 2001 media crackdown remain behind bars, the CPJ says. The government controls most broadcast outlets; internet connections are hard to find, and foreign radio signals are jammed.

Eritrean law says reporters must promote “national objectives”. Journalists at the country’s state-run media outlets “toe the government’s editorial line for fear of retaliation”, the CPJ said in a nine-page report.

Eritrea’s mission to the United Nations did not answer an interview request from IPS.

In North Korea, the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) runs nearly all the country’s newspapers and broadcasters and sticks to reporting on the latest comments and activities of the reclusive nation’s leader Kim Jong Un.

KCNA has typically been “highly restrictive in its coverage of foreign news”, but that changed in recent months, allowing for reporting on talks between Kim and United States President Donald Trump over Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program.

Free media also remains largely absent in Turkmenistan, where President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov “enjoys absolute control” over newspapers and broadcasters and wields this power to “promote his cult of personality”, the CPS says.

“A handful of independent Turkmenistan-focused media outlets, such as Khronika Turkmenistana, operate in exile, and anyone who attempts to access the website can be questioned by the authorities,” the report says.

The group also names Saudi Arabia as an offender, spotlighting the murder and dismemberment of Saudi journalist and government critic Jamal Khashoggi in the country’s consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, in October 2018.

The oil-rich kingdom has witnessed a “sharp deterioration” in media freedoms during the ascendancy of the country’s crown prince and de facto ruler Mohammed bin Salman, with new anti-terror and cybercrime laws helping to silence journalists, the CPJ says.

The CPJ report was released only days after the hardline religious militant Taliban group kidnapped six local journalists in Afghanistan last week, as they were travelling to a media workshop in Paktika province.

CPJ researchers noted that journalists struggled with war and instability in such countries as Afghanistan, Syria and Somalia, but said that these issues were “not necessarily attributable solely to government censorship”.

The CPJ media freedom ranking is similar to the list compiled by Reporters Without Borders, another watchdog, which also shames Eritrea, North Korea and Turkmenistan as the world’s worst three countries for independent journalism.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/eritrea-tops-watchlist-worlds-censored-countries/feed/0Awareness Should be the Priority in Public Health Efforts against Leprosyhttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/awareness-priority-public-health-efforts-leprosy/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=awareness-priority-public-health-efforts-leprosy
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/awareness-priority-public-health-efforts-leprosy/#respondMon, 09 Sep 2019 12:44:28 +0000Ben Kritzhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163176Increasing awareness of the continuing existence of Hansen’s Disease (leprosy) is critical to sustaining effective public health efforts against the disease, eliminating the social stigma associated with it, and halting its transmission. That was the consensus reached by participants at the Global Forum of People’s Organisations on Hansen’s Disease in Manila on Sept. 9, following […]

]]>The post Awareness Should be the Priority in Public Health Efforts against Leprosy appeared first on Inter Press Service.
]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/awareness-priority-public-health-efforts-leprosy/feed/0Culture of Peace Takes Big Stride as UN Observes 20th Anniversary of Norm-Setting 1999 Decisionhttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/culture-peace-takes-big-stride-un-observes-20th-anniversary-norm-setting-1999-decision/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=culture-peace-takes-big-stride-un-observes-20th-anniversary-norm-setting-1999-decision
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/culture-peace-takes-big-stride-un-observes-20th-anniversary-norm-setting-1999-decision/#respondMon, 09 Sep 2019 10:21:56 +0000Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhuryhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163169Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury is Founder of the Global Movement for The Culture of Peace (GMCoP), Permanent Representative of Bangladesh (1996-2001) and Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the United Nations (2002-2007)

It has been a long, arduous journey – a journey ridden curiously with obstacles and indifference. Two decades have passed by since the UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted, by consensus and without reservation, its landmark and norm-setting resolution 53/243 on the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace in 1999.

The current President of the UNGA Ms Maria Fernanda Espinosa Garces, former Foreign Minister of Ecuador is convening on 13 September the UN High-Level Forum on the Culture of Peace underlining the importance the world body attaches to full and effective implementation of this forward-looking decision.

It was exactly on that date 20 years ago the UN took its most forward-looking stride in ensuring a peaceful planet for all of us since the Charter of the UN in 1945. The UN Charter arose out of the ashes of the Second World War and the UN Declaration and the Programme of Action on Culture of Peace was born in the aftermath of the long-drawn Cold War.

Simply put, the Culture of Peace as a concept means that every one of us needs to consciously make peace and nonviolence a part of our daily existence. We should not isolate peace as something separate or distant. We should know how to relate to one another without being aggressive, without being violent, without being disrespectful, without neglect, without prejudice.

It is important to realize that the absence of peace takes away the opportunities that we need to better ourselves, to prepare ourselves, to empower ourselves to face the challenges of our lives, individually and collectively.

It is also a positive, dynamic participatory process wherein “dialogue is encouraged and conflicts are solved in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation.”

Ambassador Anwarul Chowdhury

Each and every individual is important to the process of transformation required to secure the culture of peace in our world. Each person must be convinced that nonviolent, cooperative action is possible.

If a person succeeds in resolving a conflict in a nonviolent manner at any point in time, then this individual has made a big contribution to the world because this singular act has succeeded in transferring the spirit of non-violence and cooperation to another individual. When repeated, such a spirit will grow exponentially, a practice that will become easier each time the choice is made to face a situation, resolve a conflict non-violently.

On 16 December 1998, at a Security Council meeting on the maintenance of peace and security and post-conflict peace-building, I implored that “International peace and security can be best strengthened, not by actions of States alone, but by women and men through the inculcation of the culture of peace and non-violence in every human being and every sphere of activity. The objective of the culture of peace is the empowerment of people.”

As we were coming out of the Cold War, it dawned on us to see how best to take advantage of the end of that era of bitter rivalry and proxy wars and to make peace sustainable.

The Constitution of UNESCO says, “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.” The concept of the culture of peace started evolving in this spirit, to promote a change of values and behavior.

Soon after I became the Ambassador of Bangladesh to the United Nations in New York in 1996, I felt that the culture of peace is a marvelous concept that humanity needs to embrace. I took the lead in proposing in 1997 along with some other Ambassadors in a letter to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to include a specific, self-standing agenda item of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on culture of peace.

A new agenda item on the culture of peace was thus agreed upon after considerable negotiating hurdles and the new item was allocated to the plenary of the General Assembly for discussion on an annual basis.

Under this item, UNGA adopted in 1997 a resolution to declare the year 2000 the “International Year for the Culture of Peace”, and in 1998, a resolution to declare the period from 2001 to 2010 the “International Decade for the Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World”.

On 13 September 1999, the United Nations adopted the Declaration and Programme of Action on the Culture of Peace, a monumental document that transcends boundaries, cultures, societies and nations.

It was an honour for me to Chair the nine-month long negotiations that led to the adoption of this historic norm-setting document that is considered as one of the most significant legacies of the United Nations that would endure generations.

I introduced the agreed text of that document (A/RES/53/243) on behalf of all Member States for adoption by the Assembly with its President Didier Opertti of Uruguay chairing the meeting. Through this landmark adoption, the General Assembly laid down humanity’s charter for the new approaching millennium.

To commemorate the 20th anniversary of that momentous action by the most universal global body in a “befitting manner” on 13 September 2019, the on-going 73rd session of the UN General Assembly adopted the resolution 73/126 on 12 December 2018 – with the co-sponsorship of 100 Member States led by Bangladesh – which requested “the President of the General Assembly to give special attention to the appropriate and befitting observance of the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration and Programme of Action, which falls on 13 September 2019, by holding the high-level forum on that date, which will be an opportunity for renewing the commitments to strengthen further the global movement for the culture of peace.”

A significant aspect of the essential message as articulated in the UN documents effectively asserts that the “culture of peace is a process of individual, collective and institutional transformation.” Transformation is of the most essential relevance here.

The Programme of Action identifies eight specific areas which encourage actions at all levels – the individual, the family, the community, the nation, the region – and, of course, the global level. Though the Declaration and Programme of Action is an agreement among nations, governments, civil society, media and individuals are all identified in this document as key actors.

It is essential to remember that the culture of peace requires a change of our hearts, change of our mindset. The Culture of Peace can be achieved through simple ways of living, changing of our own behavior, changing how we relate to each other.

How do we build and promote the culture of peace? To turn the culture of peace into a global, universal movement, the most crucial element that is needed is for every one of us to be a true believer in peace and non-violence.

A lot can be achieved in promoting the culture of peace through individual resolve and action. By immersing ourselves in a mode of behaviour that supports and promotes peace, individual efforts will – over time – combine and unite, and peace, security and sustainability will emerge. This is the only way we shall achieve a just and sustainable peace in the world.

All educational institutions need to offer opportunities that prepare the students not only to live fulfilling lives but also to be responsible and productive citizens of the world. For that, educators need to introduce holistic and empowering curricula that cultivate the culture of peace in each and every young mind. Indeed, this should be more appropriately called “education for global citizenship”.

Such learning cannot be achieved without well-intentioned, sustained, and systematic peace education that leads the way to the culture of peace. If our minds could be likened to a computer, then education provides the software with which to “reboot” our priorities and actions away from violence, towards the culture of peace.

For this, I believe that early childhood affords a unique opportunity for us to sow the seeds of transition from the culture of war to the culture of peace. The events that a child experiences early in life, the education that this child receives, and the community activities and socio-cultural mindset in which a child is immersed all contribute to how values, attitudes, traditions, modes of behavior, and ways of life develop.

We need to use this window of opportunity to instil the rudiments that each individual needs to become agents of peace and non-violence from an early life. I would like to add that young people of today should embrace the culture of peace in a way that can not only shape their lives but can also shape the future of the world.

Let us – yes, all of us — embrace the culture of peace for the good of humanity, for the sustainability of our planet and for making our world a better place to live.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury is Founder of the Global Movement for The Culture of Peace (GMCoP), Permanent Representative of Bangladesh (1996-2001) and Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the United Nations (2002-2007)

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/culture-peace-takes-big-stride-un-observes-20th-anniversary-norm-setting-1999-decision/feed/0Kashmir: How Modi’s Aggressive ‘Hindutva’ Project has Brought India and Pakistan to the Brink – Againhttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/kashmir-modis-aggressive-hindutva-project-brought-india-pakistan-brink/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=kashmir-modis-aggressive-hindutva-project-brought-india-pakistan-brink
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/kashmir-modis-aggressive-hindutva-project-brought-india-pakistan-brink/#respondMon, 09 Sep 2019 02:55:36 +0000Abdullah Yusufhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163160Abdullah Yusuf is a lecturer in politics at the University of Dundee.

The Indian government put an end to large scale protests by revoking the autonomy of Indian-administered Kashmir – a status provided for under the Indian Constitution. Thousands of troops were deployed and the valley region faced unprecedented lockdown. Credit: Umer Asif/IPS

By Abdullah YusufSep 9 2019 (IPS)

August is immensely important in the history of the Asian subcontinent, marking the month that India and Pakistan gained independence from the British in 1947. Now, in 2019, it has once again proved momentous, when, ten days before India’s Independence day celebrations, prime minister Narendra Modi’s government revoked the autonomy of Indian-administered Kashmir – a status provided for under the Indian Constitution.

This latest move was a manifesto pledge from Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which claims that Kashmir’s autonomy has hindered its development while fostering an area of thriving terrorism and smuggling.

Soon, thousands of troops were deployed and the valley region faced unprecedented lockdown. Experts say that Modi’s move to tether the Muslim majority of Kashmir is a gamble that could trigger conflict with Pakistan while reigniting an insurgency that has already cost tens of thousands of lives.

Kashmir: a brief history

Until 1947, Kashmir was a territorially well-defined and functional state that had existed for a century before its seizure by the British in 1846. The British decolonisation of the subcontinent in 1947 was instrumental in creating disorder that pushed Kashmir into a repeated cycle of war and stalemate between Pakistan and India, which have both claimed the region as sovereign territory for the last 70 years.

Today, Kashmir’s geopolitical position and glacial water reserves – which provide fresh water and hydro-electric power to millions – add an extra dimension to the existing sectarian and ideological conflict between India and Pakistan over this small northern region.

The Kashmir issue has resulted in three wars between these two countries – in 1947, 1965 and 1999 – triggering numerous UN Security Council Resolutions – which unequivocally call for the Kashmiris’ right to self-determination.

Modi’s Hindu nationalist project

Many within the region feel that Modi’s BJP is brazenly trying to change Kashmir’s ethnic composition to disadvantage India’s Muslim minority by encouraging more Hindus into the region. Since the revocation of Article 370 (which assured the region’s autonomy), Indian Kashmiri leaders who vehemently opposed the decision – including two former chief ministers – have been sent to jail.

Modi’s government has a history of stoking tensions between Hindus and Muslims, with its political rule now focused on “Hindutva”, which translates roughly as “Hindu-ness”, and reframes Hinduism as an identity rather than a theology or religion.

Modi has fostered Hindu nationalism through anti-Islamic rhetoric, accusing Muslim men of attempting to change India’s demographics by seducing Hindu women, as well as encouraging lynching of Muslims falsely accused of eating beef (from the sacred Hindu cow) in BJP controlled states. Clearly, these are tactics designed to expand the notion of Hindutva and further isolate the Muslim population within India. Targeting Kashmir is a crucial part of the strategy.

Dangerous tensions and nuclear options

In the wake of India’s decision to revoke Kashmir’s special status, there are two key questions.

Second, how is the situation affecting the already tense relations between India and Pakistan? India’s land grab comes just five months after a breakdown in relations following claims by India that a Pakistani-based suicide bomber killed 44 Indian soldiers in the Kashmir region, leading to airstrikes by both sides. The situation threatens to reignite this conflict with both countries cautioning the world about the nuclear option.

Addressing a joint session of Pakistan’s parliament on August 6, prime minister Imran Khan briefed lawmakers on the steps his government had taken towards peace in the region. But he maintained the situation in Indian-occupied Kashmir would deteriorate and its neighbour would blame and attack Pakistan.

Days later, Indian defence minister Rajnath Singh stated that India is committed to “no first use” of nuclear weapons, but future policy is dependent on the ever-evolving circumstances. These sentiments have led to international debate over the possibility of nuclear weapons being unleashed.

Parallels with East Timor

With this nuclear threat ever present, the situation in Kashmir is now one of the most dangerous in the world. Since the two countries have consistently failed to make any progress, external help from the international community and the UN is crucial in resolving the conflict and preventing further escalation.

As the world witnessed in the case of East Timor in 1999, independence from Indonesia after two decades of bloodshed was achieved following a referendum held under the stewardship of the UN. This result was not accepted by Indonesia, which launched a scorched-earth campaign, killing more than 1,500 Timorese, displacing nearly half the population, and razing much of East Timor to the ground.

The subsequent progression towards independence and peacebuilding was facilitated by external bodies such as the UN-mandated International Force in East Timor and the Transitional Administration in East Timor, underscoring the importance of support from both the UN and the international community.

The UN didn’t achieve success overnight, but endured through increasing international pressure, combined with a change in the Suharto government. Soon, Indonesia found itself falling out of favour with the international community.

There are parallels here for the Kashmir situation. Although progress may be slow while Modi’s populist BJP remains in power, pressure from the international community would likely go a long way towards pulling both countries back from the brink. In the meantime, while Modi tries to remake India in the BJP’s Hindutva image, for Kashmiris the struggle for self-determination goes on.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/kashmir-modis-aggressive-hindutva-project-brought-india-pakistan-brink/feed/0Are 9-to-5 Jobs Fast Becoming History – Even at the UN?http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/9-5-jobs-fast-becoming-history-even-un/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=9-5-jobs-fast-becoming-history-even-un
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/9-5-jobs-fast-becoming-history-even-un/#respondFri, 06 Sep 2019 09:18:22 +0000Thalif Deenhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163127With the rapid leap in digital technology – including increased access to conference calls, e-translations, skype, text messaging and emails—more and more offices in the United States are providing employees with an option to “work from home”. The new concept was frivolously illustrated in a recent cartoon in the Wall Street Journal where the waiter […]

With the rapid leap in digital technology – including increased access to conference calls, e-translations, skype, text messaging and emails—more and more offices in the United States are providing employees with an option to “work from home”.

The new concept was frivolously illustrated in a recent cartoon in the Wall Street Journal where the waiter at a restaurant tells an impatient customer: “Your order will be up in another 45 minutes. Our chef is working from home today.”

The option to work “from another location” – euphemism for working from home—has now spread to the United Nations where it is categorized as “flexible working arrangements”—and described in official circulars either as “staggered working hours”, “compressed work schedule”, “working away from office” or “alternate work place” .

Ian Richards, President of the 60,000-strong Coordinating Committee of International Staff Unions and Associations (CCISUA), told IPS “home-working can be a great way to find focus and concentration, and avoid the stress of the daily commute. However, experience shows it is best kept within reasonable limits”.

With home-workers fearful of colleagues’ suspicions about their work activities, many have reported it harder to define the start and end of the work day, and separate their private and work lives, he said.

He pointed out that some also feel pressured to work when ill and not make use of sick leave. Lack of interaction at the office means they are less aware of developments at work and more likely to miss out on career advancement, Richards argued.

A recent circular by the UN Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance, says “the normal working week is subject to exceptions when staff members have been authorized to avail themselves of flexible working arrangements, in accordance with the Secretary-General’s bulletin on flexible working arrangements.” (ST/SGB/2019/3)

The new working arrangements have been prompted primarily by a shortage of work space in the 38-storeyed UN Secretariat building which houses more than 2,000 staffers. ST/IC/2019/15

And more so, by the UN opting out of renewing leases on several rented offices in the neighborhood – due to a growing cash crunch — and thereby forced to re-locate staffers to an already over-crowded Secretariat.

More worryingly, said Richards, the organization has been known to refuse cover for work-related accidents at home. And in times of tight budgets, some managers have argued that those who work extensively from home could be replaced by consultants.

At the same time, supervisors who work from home when not travelling are less able to supervise.

“For this reason, no-one should be pushed to work from home and neither should it function as a pressure valve for the UN’s inability to provide staff with an office and a serene work environment,” he declared.

A UN staffer told IPS that not only are they given the option to work from home— “maximum of three days during the work week” – but also, in some cases, “forcing” staffers to do so, much against their wishes.

Credit: UN

Currently, some UN offices do not have even designated work spaces which are now doled out on a first-come, first-served basis.

“I was working on my desktop computer when I was summoned to an office meeting,” one staffer recounted, “but when I got back an hour later, my computer and my desk had been taken over by another staffer— leaving me stranded momentarily while I had to hunt for another work space.”

Samir Sanbar, a former UN Assistant Secretary-General and head of the Department of Public Information, told IPS it will be interesting to find out who precisely prepared that circular; certainly not someone with a credible U.N. record.

There may be financial reasons to save cash on non-renewal of rentals. “Yet it seems like an attempt to display an emerging work practice more attuned to market business than the U.N. spirit. It would erode further the credibility of a dedicated international civil service,” he noted.

“During my tenure, we spent more time at the office than at home. I recall leaving the Secretariat building one evening, after meetings with colleagues, to discover it was 11 p.m. Working at home meant at weekends or during holidays”, he said.

“Once when the Secretary General called while I was in Southampton, continuing the discussion meant returning immediately to the building”, said Sanbar, who worked under five different Secretaries-General during his tenure at the UN.

“Working for the United Nations is not like in a business enterprise or government post. In my belief, that means being seen there — whether at headquarters or in the field.”

A visible presence openly confirmed a central relevance, said Sanbar. Lack of visibility would undercut its perception and play into the determination to erode further the role of its challenged leadership.

Iftikhar Ali, a former UN staffer who worked as Director of UNIC in Tehran (1994 to 2000) and in UNMIK’s Public Information Department in Kosovo (2001 to 2003), told IPS there are both pros and cons in the current flexible working arrangements.

Some American and European companies have been successful in letting their workers operate from their homes, and in most cases, it has improved efficiency.

“But I don’t know how it will work for the UN. After all, the UN is not a company selling goods or services; it is an international organization struggling to achieve higher goals: world peace, security and economic development that would benefit all,” he said.

To promote those ideals, UN staffers must remain dedicated and work together to meet those tasks, however difficult.

In this regard, he noted, UN staffers need to interact with each other more closely and also with representatives of member states.

“Therefore, the best places to develop and remain imbued with the spirit and dedication to serve the cause of peace are the UN offices and complexes where staffers meet each other face-to-face.”

Staying away from the places of work, he pointed out, would gradually erode those linkages and their international outlook, thus weakening the peace movement.

“The atmosphere at home, with lots of distractions, is not very conducive to building global mindset. The UN carries ideas, not cargo,” said Ali.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/9-5-jobs-fast-becoming-history-even-un/feed/0Is America Defeated in Afghanistan?http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/america-defeated-afghanistan/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=america-defeated-afghanistan
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/america-defeated-afghanistan/#respondThu, 05 Sep 2019 15:45:49 +0000Saber Azamhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163123Saber Azam is a former official of the United Nations and author of the recently-released book, “SORAYA: The Other Princess”, a historical fiction that overflies the recent seven decades of Afghan history.

Following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on American soil, the United States and their allies went to Afghanistan to “smoke out” Osama bin Laden and his Taliban protectors. The most fundamental primary mistake was to let all terrorists flee to Pakistan instead of sealing the border and capturing their main figures.

Furthermore, the foundation of the new political make-up of the country was built with “wrong stones”. The power-sharing government agreed upon in Bonn on 5 December 2001 under the auspices of the United Nations with strong backing of the United States did not consider historic hurdles of the past and lacked vision for the future.

Whoever the United States liked was given parts and parcels of the power. Deployment of troops and erection of multiple military bases in major corners and cities of the country were impressive. The peoples of Afghanistan, nevertheless hoped earnestly for a better future, embraced the presence of foreign troops and establishment of the transitional power.

The third significant error consisted of bringing Hamid Karzai, the man of their choice, who had no credibility or required knowledge and experience, to the realm of power. Some years back, the Soviet Union had propelled Babrak Karmal under similar circumstances with devastating effects that ended in their military and political defeat.

Karzai thought Afghanistan was still a feudal country and surrounded himself with kin and “loyalists”. He governed through chieftains, poured money into their pockets and awarded undeserved titles.

The fourth main mistake of the United States was to avoid nation building efforts. Centuries of discrimination against some ethnic groups, the bloody civil war between 1992 and 1996 as well as five years of the horrendous Taliban regime had never allowed the populations of the country to feel as a nation.

Saber Azam

It was a golden opportunity to finally bring positive forces together for the benefit of the country. But, the occasion was horribly missed; George W. Bush made it clear that the International Community had not come to Afghanistan for nation building.

In addition to the aforementioned political and military howlers, the United States made some fundamental cultural mistakes that demonstrated their amateurish knowledge of Afghanistan. Violation of private premises was the most serious offense.

Certain of their military might, foreign troops brook into the houses without notice in “search of terrorists”, ignoring the basic courtesy rule of asking the head of the family for permission, something that they would have been granted with pleasure.

The reaction was instantaneous, summarized in total rejection of the methodology. Lack of respect for women in rural Afghanistan was another unforgiveable mistake. Afghans are definitely poor, but extremely rich in their pride. Search of women by male soldiers and tiding hands with plastic rope before even interrogating an individual should have never happened, had essential briefings been provided to the troops.

The United States and their allies, including the multilateral branch of the International Community, also failed to fulfill the essence of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1378, 1383 and 1386 of the year 2001 and 1390 of 2002. Afghanistan was supposed to be an example of safety, democracy, rule of law and equal opportunity for all citizens. This was short lived.

A government that was composed of corrupt, inept and inefficient individuals was entertained. Abuse of democratic principles, “selection” of parliament chiefs, systematic violation of law by its “guardians”, rampant fraud and embezzlement of public and international aid money by the government wolves as well as their allies and family members, nepotism and tribalism gangrened quickly the apparatus of a state that should have been exemplary.

The International Community on their part opted for the policy of “dumb, deaf and blind”, contributing further to the “endorsement” of venalities. Ethnic biased both at central and provincial levels composed the essence of governmental actions at all layers.

UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan. Credit: UN

Ineptness became the trade mark of a team that was totally supported, funded and kept in power by the International Community. Soon, people were frustrated to see billions of US dollars allocated for their welfare and reconstruction of their country wasted, embezzled and misused by the bigwig of the regime and some foreign companies.

Aware of people’s disdain, the Taliban regrouped. Encouraged, trained and armed by Pakistan, they begun to enter Afghanistan to terrorize the population and security forces. Less than a year after they were supposed to be smoked out, the Taliban and their terrorist associates were back in Afghanistan while the leader of Al-Qaeda was left “scot free” in Pakistan!

President Karzai’s election in 2005 did not pose a problem However, his second term “election” that coincided with the last months of Georg Bush’s presidency was marred with massive fraud to the extent that his challenger, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah had to withdraw from the second round, leaving most observers to believe that the United States had obviously taken side in Afghanistan.

The arrival of President Barak Obama into the White House had a positive effect. He effectively put pressure on Karzai to curb corruption and nepotism, oblige government legislative, judiciary and administrative leaders to abide by the rule of law and endeavor to bring Afghan fragmented communities together.

Under such circumstances, the erratic leader of Afghanistan, the man who used to thank the United States and George Bush exaggeratedly in his public appearances, turned into a “patriot” blaming America for his own wrong doings. Nevertheless, the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011 in Pakistan provided some basis for optimism about security in the country.

But unhappiness of the population at large and corrupt government officials allowed the Taliban to make further progress, capture districts, hit the hearts of Kabul and other major cities, attack foreign troops and commit mass murders and genocide in the country. The 2014 presidential election was another shameful blunder to democracy and rule of law.

It was marred by scandalous rigging. Ashraf Ghani was propelled to the second round to face Dr. Abdullah Abdullah. After months of delay in announcing the final results, the United States had no other choice but to opt for temporary freeze of the constitutional requirements, a political agreement between the two contenders and formation of a government of national unity. It was a mockery of democratic principles.

Ghani caused further fragmentation of the society, did not curb corruption and nepotism and further exacerbated the population. The “second most intelligent brain” proved to be a mediocre politician and low-level manager who survived by instigating tribalism and giving empty promises to the people.

America’s effort to sign a “peace deal” with the Taliban, one of the most violent terrorist groups signifies their failure in Afghanistan with dramatic consequences on the lives of each one of us. It gives tremendous strength to other such organizations in Asia, Africa and elsewhere to “dream” about their success and will render them more determined and virulent.

This deal will not bring peace and security in Afghanistan, but further fragment the society leading to another prolonged war against terrorism!

Saber Azam is a former official of the United Nations and author of the recently-released book, “SORAYA: The Other Princess”, a historical fiction that overflies the recent seven decades of Afghan history.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/america-defeated-afghanistan/feed/0Exclusive: Winnie Byanyima Speaks about Inequality in Africa and Next Steps at UNAIDShttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/exclusive-winnie-byanyima-speaks-inequality-africa-next-steps-unaids/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=exclusive-winnie-byanyima-speaks-inequality-africa-next-steps-unaids
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/exclusive-winnie-byanyima-speaks-inequality-africa-next-steps-unaids/#respondThu, 05 Sep 2019 09:34:30 +0000Crystal Ordersonhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163115In this Voices from the Global South podcast, IPS takes you to Cape Town, South Africa where Winnie Byanyima, Oxfam's outgoing director talks exclusively to IPS about taking up the post executive director of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS and about Oxfam's recent inequality report.

In this Voices from the Global South podcast, IPS takes you to Cape Town, South Africa where Winnie Byanyima, Oxfam's outgoing director talks exclusively to IPS about taking up the post executive director of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS and about Oxfam's recent inequality report.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/exclusive-winnie-byanyima-speaks-inequality-africa-next-steps-unaids/feed/0UN’s Upcoming Summits May Foreshadow a Revival of Multilateralism or an Obituary for World Orderhttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/uns-upcoming-summits-may-foreshadow-revival-multilateralism-obituary-world-order/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=uns-upcoming-summits-may-foreshadow-revival-multilateralism-obituary-world-order
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/uns-upcoming-summits-may-foreshadow-revival-multilateralism-obituary-world-order/#respondThu, 05 Sep 2019 09:00:29 +0000Thalif Deenhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163117The United Nations will be hosting six high level plenary meetings –- unprecedented even by its own standards—during the beginning of the 74th session of the General Assembly in late September. The meetings are being viewed primarily as an attempt at reviving multilateral diplomacy at a time when a rash of hard-right nationalist leaders, including […]

The United Nations will be hosting six high level plenary meetings –- unprecedented even by its own standards—during the beginning of the 74th session of the General Assembly in late September.

The meetings are being viewed primarily as an attempt at reviving multilateral diplomacy at a time when a rash of hard-right nationalist leaders, including US President Donald Trump, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines and Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary, are either rooting for authoritarianism, abandoning international treaties or undermining multilateralism—not necessarily in that order.

Regrettably, they are joined by a fistful of other demagogic leaders both from the North and the South, including from Russia, Italy, Myanmar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Poland and Turkey – among others.

The United Nations is expecting over 180 world leaders, including foreign ministers and high-ranking government officials, to participate in the six-day mega event.

The multilateral bodies — and international treaties– that have taken a beating include the UN Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Human Rights Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and Paris Climate Change agreement.

As one delegate puts it: “It is either a resurrection of multilateralism or a prelude to an obituary for international order”.

Scheduled to take place September 23-27, the meetings will cover a wide range of political and socio-economic issues on the UN agenda, including climate change, universal health care, sustainable development goals (SDGs), financing for development (FfD), elimination of nuclear weapons and the survival of small island developing states (SIDS) facing extinction from rising sea levels.

Speaking to reporters last month, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that multilateralism is under attack from many different directions precisely “when we need it most.”

“In different areas and for different reasons, the trust of people in their political establishments, the trust of states among each other, the trust of many people in international organizations has been eroded and … multilateralism has been in the fire,” he complained.

On the upcoming six summits, Guterres warned “the people of the world do not want half measures or empty promises. They are demanding transformative change that is fair and sustainable.”

But will the talk-fest produce concrete results or end up being another political exercise in futility?

In an interview with IPS, Jayantha Dhanapala, a former Sri Lankan Ambassador and UN Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, said: “As we survey the graveyard of multilateral security, environmental and economic agreements underpinning the mutually beneficial liberal order, fires burn 20% of the lungs of the world in the Amazon and even the Arctic has its tundra burning.”

“And the numbers of refugees fleeing violence and persecution are the highest in recorded history.”

With the unrivalled super-power under the quixotic leadership of Donald Trump, even developing countries like the Philippines, Brazil and others have abandoned global norms, Dhanapala told IPS.

“A rule based international order is collapsing before our eyes and Britain is on the brink of a messy Brexit while trade wars ruin Sino-US trade and drive the world towards a ruinous recession and the end of sustainable development.”

Martin S. Edwards, Associate Professor and Chair, School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University told IPS: “I think you’re right that the depth and breadth of the work that the UN is launching is more than just symbolic.”

With Bolsonaro set to address the General Assembly right before President Trump (on September 24), their comments will mirror each other, and will be in stark contrast to many of the other delegates, he added.

But the important thing, he pointed out, is that there’s needed substance here.

“The US might well sit out the Climate Action Summit, and that’s fine. The work of the UN and the member countries will go on without it”.

As for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), he said, this is a signature UN initiative that needs more attention and focus.

“The world is not on track to reach many of these goals, and without greater commitment by member governments, they are not likely to be met by 2030. With the US disengaged from many of these discussions, it falls to the Secretary General to recommit leaders to these goals,” Edwards noted.

James Paul, a former executive director of the New York-based Global Policy Forum, told IPS “This is a time of great international uncertainty and instability. What does this mean for the UN as a cluster of high-profile meetings approaches? And what can we expect from these events?”

“My sense is this: nationalistic enthusiasm is now waning at the popular level and posturing leaders are under increasing pressure from below to deliver more than rhetoric. So multilateral diplomacy may be headed for a much-needed revival, with a stronger and more egalitarian agenda coming to the fore.”

“As we have seen at the recent G-7 meeting in Biarritz, leaders are changing course and opting for more cooperation, though still far less than what is required. Above all, the environmental crisis is serving to mobilize public attention and energized youth are insisting that their voices be heard,” said Paul, author of the recently-released book titled “Of Foxes and Chickens: Oligarchy and Global Power in the UN Security Council”.

Greta Thunberg, the dynamic young Swedish activist, he said, will be at the UN climate meeting to dramatize the need for common action and to symbolize the essential role that the UN can play.

Will the leaders act with the seriousness and determination that she demands? It may be, as climate activists rightly say, our last chance. No politician will be excused for inaction in such a dramatic circumstance.

The UN has much to offer at this moment in history, Paul declared.

Greta Thunberg, 16-year-old climate activist from Sweden, sails into New York Harbor flanked by a fleet of 17 sailboats representing each of the Sustainable Development Goals on their sails. She embarked on a trans-Atlantic voyage on 14 August from Plymouth, England to New York City on a solar-powered, zero-emission racing boat, the Malizia II, to attend the UN Climate Action Summit in New York September 23, one of six summit meetings scheduled to take place late September. Credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten

The UN, he argued, has lost its moral influence and not even the upcoming ritualistic General Assembly gathering of heads of state can salvage sensible limits on nuclear weapons, conventional weapons and a new generation of Lethal Autonomous Weapons or robotic weapons while negotiating an end to regional wars.

Next year, in 2020, he said, the UN will observe its 75th anniversary when a new chapter rededicating this unique global body to the ideals of the Charter opens.

“New stringent agreements must be negotiated at the planned gatherings without the charade of rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking Titanic. The UN has the creative minds to do this. Can its member states summon the political will to do so?,” he asked.

Edwards said one other thing that is important to underscore is that these upcoming meetings will be a real credit to Secretary General Guterres’ quiet leadership style.

He has responded to the President’s call for a more minimal multilateralism by going big, but doing so without the bombast that is a hallmark of the Trump administration.

So, this might be an interesting inflection point. The world has proven with climate that it can move forward without the US. The question is how much this happens in other areas moving forward?, he asked.

“I like the attention on Financing for Development (FfD), but that meeting is probably not going to be a successful as developing countries raise the issue of G20 broken promises on foreign aid, and G20 countries are too cheap to admit it,” he declared.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/uns-upcoming-summits-may-foreshadow-revival-multilateralism-obituary-world-order/feed/0Achieving Global Consensus on How to Slow Down Loss of Landhttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/achieving-global-consensus-to-slow-down-loss-of-land/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=achieving-global-consensus-to-slow-down-loss-of-land
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/achieving-global-consensus-to-slow-down-loss-of-land/#respondWed, 04 Sep 2019 15:58:59 +0000Ranjit Devrajhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163105Expectations are high, perhaps too high, as the 14th Conference of the Parties (CoP 14) of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), now into the third day of its two-week session, is being held outside the smog-filled Indian capital of New Delhi. At the inauguration on Monday, India’s minister for environment, forests and […]

India’s minister for environment, forests and climate change, Prakash Javadekar (left), said he would be happy if CoP 14 could achieve consensus on such difficult issues as drought management and land tenure. Courtesy: Ranjit Devraj

By Ranjit DevrajNEW DELHI, Sep 4 2019 (IPS)

Expectations are high, perhaps too high, as the 14th Conference of the Parties (CoP 14) of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), now into the third day of its two-week session, is being held outside the smog-filled Indian capital of New Delhi.

At the inauguration on Monday, India’s minister for environment, forests and climate change, Prakash Javadekar, soon after ceremonies to mark his taking over as president of the Convention for the next two years, said he would be happy if CoP 14 could achieve consensus on such difficult issues as drought management and land tenure.

Other issues on the agenda of CoP14, themed ‘Restore land, Sustain future’ and located in Greater Noida, in northern Uttar Pradesh state, include negotiations over consumption and production flows that have a bearing on agriculture and urbanisation, restoration of ecosystems and dealing with climate change.

The IPCC report covered interlinked, overlapping issues that are at the core of CoP14 deliberations — climate, change, desertification, and degradation, sustainable land management, food security and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems.

“Sustainable land management can contribute to reducing the negative impacts of multiple stressors, including climate change, on ecosystems and societies,” the IPCC report said. It also identified land use change as the largest driver of biodiversity loss and as having the greatest impact on the environment.

Javadekar said he saw hope in the fact that of the 196 parties to the Convention 122, including some of the most populous like Brazil, China, India, Nigeria, Russia and South Africa have agreed to make the U.N. Sustainable Development Goal of achieving land degradation neutrality (LDN) targets by 2030 as national objectives.

But the difficulty of seeing results on the ground can be gauged from India’s own difficult situation. Nearly 30 percent of India’s 328 million hectares, supporting 1.3 billion people, has become degraded through deforestation, over-cultivation, soil-erosion and wetland depletion, according to a satellite survey conducted in 2016 by the Indian Space Research Organisation.

A study, conducted last year by The Energy and Resource Institute (TERI), an independent think-tank based in New Delhi, estimates India’s losses from land degradation and change in land use to be worth 47 billion dollars in 2014—2015.

The question before CoP14 is how participating countries can slow down loss of land and along with it biodiversity threatening to impact 3.2 billion people across the world. “Three out of every four hectares have been altered from their natural states and the productivity of one every four hectares of land has been declining,” according to UNCCD.

Running in parallel to CoP14 is the 14th session of UNCCD’s committee on science and technology (CST14), a subsidiary body with stated objectives — estimating soil organic carbon lost as a result of land degradation, addressing the ‘land-drought nexus’ through land-based interventions and translating available science into policy options for participating countries.

On Tuesday, as CoP4 launched into substantive business, the participants at the CST and other subsidiary bodies began to voice real apprehensions and demands.

Bhutan representing the Asia Pacific group, highlighted the need for cooperation at all levels to disseminate and translate identified technologies and knowledge into direct benefits for local land users.

Bangladesh pointed out that LDN targets are sometimes linked to transboundary water resources and also called for mobilising additional resources for capacity building.

Colombia, speaking for the Latin America and Caribbean group, appreciated the value of research by the scientific panels, but urged introduction of improved technologies and mitigation strategies to reduce the direct impacts of drought on ecosystems, starting with soil degradation.

Russia, on behalf of Central and Eastern Europe, mooted the establishment of technical centres in the region to support the generation of scientific evidence to prevent and manage droughts, sustainable use of forests and peatlands and monitoring of sand and dust storms.

Civil society organisations, led by the Cape Town-based Environmental Monitoring Group, were also critical of the UNCCD for putting too much emphasis on LDN and demanded optimisation of land use through practical solutions that would ensure that carbon is retained in the soil.

“Retaining carbon in the soil is of particular value to India and its neighbouring countries, which presently have the world’s greatest rainwater runoffs into the sea,” says Himanshu Thakkar, coordinator, South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP), a New Delhi based NGO, working on the water and environment sectors.

“What South Asian countries need to do urgently is to improve the rainwater harvesting so as to recharge groundwater aquifers and local water bodies in a given catchment so that water is available in the post-monsoon period that increasingly see severe droughts,” Thakkar tells IPS. “This is where governments can be supportive.”

Benefits such as preventing soil degradation and consequent landslides that have become a common feature in South India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

A study published in May said half of the area around 16 of India’s 24 major river basins is facing droughts due to lowered soil moisture levels while at least a third of its 18 river basins has become non-resilient to vegetation droughts.

Responding to the suggestions and demands the Secretariat highlighted recommendations to ensure mainstreaming of LDN targets in national strategies and action programmes, partnerships on science-policy to increase awareness and understanding of LDN and collaborations to assess finance and capacity development needs.

In all, the delegates, who include 90 ministers and more than 7,000 participants drawn from among government officials, civil society and the scientific community from the 197 parties will thrash out 30 decision texts and draw up action plans to strengthen land-use policies and address emerging threats such as droughts, forest fires, dust storms and forced migration.

“The agenda shows that governments have come to CoP14 ready to find solutions to many difficult, knotty and emerging policy issues,” said Thiaw at the inaugural session. The conference ends with the parties signing a ‘New Delhi Declaration’ outlining actions to meet UNCCD goals for 2018-2030.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/achieving-global-consensus-to-slow-down-loss-of-land/feed/0U.N. Criticised for Link-up with Saudi Prince MBShttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/u-n-criticised-link-saudi-prince-mbs/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=u-n-criticised-link-saudi-prince-mbs
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/u-n-criticised-link-saudi-prince-mbs/#respondWed, 04 Sep 2019 06:47:47 +0000James Reinlhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163090The United Nations is under growing pressure to scrap an event it is co-hosting with the private foundation of Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Mohammad bin Salman, who has been linked to the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. On Tuesday, Sunjeev Bery, director of Freedom Forward, became the latest leader of a campaign group to press […]

Jamal Kahshoggi, a US-based journalist who frequently criticised the Saudi government, was killed while visiting the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, where he was collecting papers for his wedding. Courtesy: POMED/CC by 2.0

By James ReinlUNITED NATIONS, Sep 4 2019 (IPS)

The United Nations is under growing pressure to scrap an event it is co-hosting with the private foundation of Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Mohammad bin Salman, who has been linked to the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

On Tuesday, Sunjeev Bery, director of Freedom Forward, became the latest leader of a campaign group to press the U.N. to cancel the Sept. 23 event, saying it would help repair bin Salman’s reputation over the Khashoggi murder.

The event, known as the Misk-OSGEY Youth Forum, is a partnership between the U.N.’s youth envoy, Jayathma Wickramanayake, and the Misk Foundation, a culture and education foundation chaired by bin Salman, who is better known as MBS.

“No one — especially not the U.N. — should be partnering with MBS or his personal Misk Foundation,” Bery told IPS.

“Saudi Arabia’s brutal crown prince is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Yemeni children. His thugs imprisoned leading women’s rights activists and murdered Jamal Khashoggi.”

Kenneth Roth, the director of Human Rights Watch, a campaign group, last week accused the world body of helping to “whitewash” MBS’s record; Mandeep Tiwana, from Civicus, a rights group, called the event “disturbing”.

The U.N. youth envoy’s office declined to comment on the row. U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said the world body had repeatedly issued “very strong statements … calling for accountability” in Khashoggi’s killing.

The Misk-OSGEY Youth Forum will take place in New York only 10 days before the first anniversary of Khashoggi’s murder on Oct. 2 last year, when Saudi government agents killed and dismembered the journalist inside the country’s consulate in Istanbul.

The CIA later determined that MBS had personally ordered the hit. Saudi officials, who initially said Khashoggi had left the consulate alive, now say the journalist was killed in a rogue operation that did not involve MBS.

Saudi Arabia’s mission to the U.N. did not answer requests for comment from IPS.

The four-hour workshop for 300 young people at the New York Public Library will occur on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly and promote green themes, corporate responsibility and other aspects of the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) agenda.

It will feature Alexandra Cousteau, an environmentalist and granddaughter of French explorer Jacques-Yves Cousteau; and Bart Houlahan, an entrepreneur who promotes sustainable business practices.

Other speakers include Andrew Corbett, an expert on entrepreneurship at Babson College, Paul Polman, former CEO of consumer goods firm Unilever, and Ann Rosenberg, an author and U.N. technology expert.

Dr. Reem Bint Mansour Al-Saud, a Saudi princess and an envoy to U.N. headquarters in New York, who advocates for empowering women and development in the Gulf kingdom, will also speak at the workshop.

Khashoggi, a United States-based journalist who frequently criticised the Saudi government, was killed while visiting the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, where he was collecting papers for his wedding.

U.N. expert Agnes Callamard issued a report in June that described the assassination as a “deliberate, premeditated execution,” and called for MBS and other Saudi officials to be probed.

The Misk-OSGEY Youth Forum comes after years of tensions between the U.N. and Riyadh over the war in Yemen, where Saudi Arabia is leading a military coalition against the country’s Houthi rebels.

The conflict has killed tens of thousands of people and caused led to a major humanitarian crisis.

“The crown prince and his violent government must be held accountable for their human rights crimes,” said Bery, who advocates for the U.S. to cut ties with Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian regimes.

“Instead, misguided U.N. staff are absurdly giving the crown prince a public relations platform as he attempts to wipe away the blood of so many dead Yemeni children.”

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/u-n-criticised-link-saudi-prince-mbs/feed/0They Call it Multistakeholderism. Where Does That Leave the UN?http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/call-multistakeholderism-leave-un/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=call-multistakeholderism-leave-un
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/call-multistakeholderism-leave-un/#respondWed, 04 Sep 2019 06:34:30 +0000Harris Gleckmanhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163092Global governance is slipping away from the United Nations. Whether it is in managing the Internet, where the UN’s governing structure offers only an advisory role for governments; or climate change, where the most exciting actions are now corporate-led partnerships outside the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; or the Gates Foundation-sponsored Gavi, The Vaccine […]

The United Nations headquarters showcasing the Sustainable Development summit, September 2015. The essayist, an expert in governance and democracy, bemoans the growing participation of multinational corporations in UN system forums. Credit: CIA PAK/UN PHOTO

By Harris GleckmanUNITED NATIONS, Sep 4 2019 (IPS)

Global governance is slipping away from the United Nations.

Whether it is in managing the Internet, where the UN’s governing structure offers only an advisory role for governments; or climate change, where the most exciting actions are now corporate-led partnerships outside the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; or the Gates Foundation-sponsored Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, which is in a tug of war with the World Health Assembly on who sets health policy in developing countries, the institutional basis for global decision-making is changing.

Where nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) were once the largest nonstate entities attending UN system meetings, transnational corporations have become the biggest players. They participate in well-attended public-private partnership sessions at the UN Conference on Trade and Development, the Human Rights Council and the High-Level Political Forum, the key body for following up on the Sustainable Development Goals.

The latest institutional foray is a World Economic Forum-UN partnership agreement. Under this arrangement, senior UN leaders are invited at national, regional and international levels to interact with forum members, many of whom are actually causing the global problems that the UN system is tasked to fix, such as climate change.

These developments are part of a new global governance approach, one in which a team of corporate executives, leaders of civil society organizations (CSOs) , officials from governments and the UN system, academics and other players take on the governance of a specific international challenge.

In the economic, social and environmental fields, this governance arrangement is called multistakeholderism, as each new global decision-maker is said to represent a “stakeholder” in an issue. In practice, these governance arrangements can have a role equal to or greater than the one held by the intergovernmental body officially assigned to address a universal problem.

These experiments in a new form of global governance and the 2010 report on the Global Redesign Initiative by the World Economic Forum run counter to efforts to enhance a sense of democracy as part of global decision-making.

Corporate executives — not leaders of small- and medium-size enterprises, nor microenterprises — are central to these groups and public-private partnerships. Yet these bodies have their own internal governance and constituencies; as a result, they redraft global principles that were agreed on by governments to meet their own, often business-focused, concerns.

The selected government officials, those considered sympathetic to the goals of multistakeholders, sit on the board as only one of the decision-makers. At the same time, the other players are elevated to a role in global governance without any democratic basis for their participation.

This dynamic is quite different from the one prevalent during the conferences of the 1990s, when civil society organizations, farm and labor organizations, educators, scientists, women and businesses gathered to provide diversified voices to governments, which alone led international decision-making.

UN public-private partnerships tend to worsen changes in the relationship between the intergovernmental process and UN secretariat staff members, who act as the administrative arm of a UN entity.

Where once the secretary-general and the heads of UN specialized agencies and programs saw themselves — and were seen by UN member governments — as governed by a specific intergovernmental body, now the secretariats act more autonomously. They strike up relationships with multiplayer bodies like the World Economic Forum and corporations without intergovernmental oversight.

A result of the increase in institutional ties between the UN and senior corporate executives is that civil society organizations, educators, scientists, women and other social communities have less ability to influence the behavior of the UN bodies and the intergovernmental process.

The weakening tie is driven both by outside factors and internal realities. The pressures on the UN system are significant. There is the cumulative effect, for example, of more than 30 years of flat or negative regular budget growth of the UN.

As an extension of President Trump’s effort to deconstruct the domestic regulatory state in the United States, his administration is also striving to deconstruct the UN system.

Internally, the secretariats perceive that taking relatively autonomous actions is one way to deliver on their generic assignments and to offset the underfunded regular budget by reaching out to potential corporate donors.

This increased autonomy is often reflected in more willingness to accept invitations to join a multistakeholder group to “represent” the UN and governments or to invite major corporations to join a secretariat-led multiparty group. These new links can allow corporations to assert that they are working with the UN — albeit without intergovernmental oversight.

They can also influence a UN secretariat to frame solutions to global problems in ways that are sensitive to their corporate constituency but not necessarily focused on government expectations or the need for leading the world toward systemic reforms.

Of course, the interests of corporations vary. For some consumer-oriented businesses, their increased role in UN operations is a chance to secure a role in creating a global sustainability market for a specific product or service.

For other multinationals, particularly those affiliated with the World Economic Forum, it is an opportunity, after the shocks of the 2008 financial crisis, to re-legitimate the globalized market in the minds of international and national elites.

It does not need to be so. Steps can be taken by governments to reassert leadership in managing globalization and mitigating global environmental crises. These could include a clear definition of conflict of interests to guide secretariats when they partner with a specific enterprise; an intergovernmental review of multistakeholders’ plans to ensure they follow UN goals; and improving intergovernmental oversight of the entire UN system through regular meetings of the heads of all intergovernmental bodies.

With the advent of many players involved in decision-making and international public-private partnerships, the secretariats are increasingly semiautonomous from their intergovernmental body, reaching out to one constituency, the international business community, thus marginalizing their overall roles with other global constituencies.

These developments undermine a public view that democracy — one country-one vote with all of its exceptions — will be the guiding global governance principles today and in the future.

Scientific expeditions in recent years have revealed that the high seas, 200 nautical miles from coastal shores, harbor an incredible array of species that provide essential services for life on Earth. Credit: The Pew Charitable Trusts

By Thalif DeenUNITED NATIONS, Sep 2 2019 (IPS)

The world’s high seas, which extend beyond 200 nautical miles, are deemed “international waters” to be shared globally– but they remain largely ungoverned.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has warned that the world’s fisheries have continued to decline, with 33 percent of fish stocks “overfished,” resulting in devastating economic consequences for coastal nations and small island developing states (SIDS).

Still, a two-week long meeting, described as the third in a series of four substantive sessions of an intergovernmental conference of 190 member states, concluded August 30, without “a serious commitment” to a longstanding proposed high seas treaty.

A final negotiating session is scheduled to take place in the first half of 2020.

Asked about the roadblocks during recent negotiations, Liz Karan, Project Director for Protecting Ocean Life on the High Seas at Pew Charitable Trusts, told IPS: “The challenging issues in the negotiations have not changed.”

She said countries still need to find solutions for sharing benefits derived from marine genetic resources, and how a new treaty body will coordinate with existing regional fisheries management organizations, and sectoral organizations such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Seabed Authority (ISA).

The current draft treaty text, she pointed out, still retains the ambitious options to create a comprehensive Marine Protected Area (MPA) network aimed at preserving high seas marine life.

Credit: FAO

Dr. Sandra Schoettner of Greenpeace’s Protect the Oceans campaign, said: “It is very disappointing to see that the pace and ambition in this meeting don’t match the level of urgency required to save our oceans and protect our planet against the climate emergency and massive biodiversity loss we are facing.”

She said the lack of political will for a progressive outcome of these negotiations is alarming as some countries clearly still favor exploitation over protection. Keeping things as they are is not going to save our oceans or, ultimately, humankind.

“That’s why it’s so frustrating to see UN members like the European Union proposing insufficient solutions that don’t represent a real change for our oceans,” she noted.

“In addition, we expect more ambition from China, the host of the CBD CoP15, to be at the forefront of biodiversity protection. We also expect a maritime nation like Norway to take leadership in this process and are disappointed to see them push for a treaty that manages our global oceans in the same way which has brought them to the brink of collapse,” Dr Schoettner declared.

According to the High Seas Alliance, the ocean’s key role in mitigating climate change, which includes absorbing 90% of the extra heat and 26% of the excess carbon dioxide created by human sources, has had a devastating effect on the ocean itself.

Managing the multitude of other anthropogenic stressors exerted on it will increase its resilience to climate change and ocean acidification and protect unique marine ecosystems, many of which are still unexplored and undiscovered. Because these are international waters, the conservation measures needed can only be put into place via a global treaty, the Alliance said.

Credit: Greenpeace

Peggy Kalas, coordinator of High Seas Alliance told IPS each of the primary elements has difficult issues but, likely, the Marine Genetic Resources (MGR) discussion and questions surrounding access and benefit sharing are one of the most difficult.

Asked if the proposed treaty will ensure a comprehensive MPA network to protect the rich biodiversity in the world’s oceans, she said: “Certainly, one of our key ambitions for this agreement, is to provide a framework for the establishment of well-managed and representative network of MPAs.”

On small island developing states (SIDS), most of whom are threatened by sea-level rise triggered by climate change, Kalas said: “A global approach and decision-making body will help smaller states with less capacity, if acting alone, to protect areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ).”

She said the proposed moratorium on deep sea mining is a separate process than the discussion taking place with respect to deep seabed mining (DSM). That discussion will continue within the confines of the International Seabed Authority (ISA).

Dr Palitha Kohona, who co-chaired (along with Dr Elizabeth Linzaard of the Netherlands) the UN Adhoc Group on Biological Diversity Beyond National Jurisdiction, told IPS that during past negotiations in that Group, a historic compromise was struck between the EU and the Group of 77 (G77) developing nations plus China.

Both groups agreed to support the EU’s pursuit of marine protected areas (MPA) while the G77 demand for benefit-sharing– relating to products developed by industry using marine genetic resources beyond national jurisdiction, mainly by the pharmaceutical industry– would be accommodated by the EU.

While this combination of forces between the G77 and the EU enabled the Working Group to finalise its recommendations by consensus, a group of countries whose common motive remained obscure, continued to express reservations, said Dr Kohona, a former Chief of the UN Treaty Section.

Nevertheless, these states, which included Norway, Russia, the US and South Korea, did not block consensus during negotiations back in February 2015.

He said the concerns of developing countries need as much attention as the call of the EU for MPAs, if the proposed Global Oceans Treaty is to be successfully finalized. But much work will need to be done inter-sessionally.

Admittedly, while the global oceans are under enormous stress with dead areas continuing to expand, and need urgent attention, the call of the developing world not to be excluded from the next development in industry, the revolution of the pharmaceutical industry based on marine genetic resources, must not be ignored.

“Precedents and compromises from within the Law of the Sea framework will need further exploration,” he declared.

Dr Schoettner of Greenpeace said the stakes are even higher now for the final stage of the negotiations.

In 2020, world leaders need to deliver a Global Ocean Treaty that allows the creation of fully protected ocean sanctuaries in international waters.

In order to seize this historic opportunity to safeguard our oceans for future generations, Greenpeace urges heads of states and ministers to commit to a strong Global Ocean Treaty – so that delegates in the negotiating room have a clear mandate to advocate progress instead of just managing defeat, she noted.

“The solution is right in front of us, now all we are missing is the political will to give a chance to our oceans and to the people who rely on it to survive.”
The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@aol.com

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/uns-high-seas-treaty-heading-towards-troubled-waters/feed/0Reimagining ‘Crazy Rich Asians’ as Social Commentary on Inequalities in Asia-Pacifichttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/reimagining-crazy-rich-asians-social-commentary-inequalities-asia-pacific/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=reimagining-crazy-rich-asians-social-commentary-inequalities-asia-pacific
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/reimagining-crazy-rich-asians-social-commentary-inequalities-asia-pacific/#respondFri, 30 Aug 2019 13:05:10 +0000Srinivas Tata and Jaco Cilliershttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163054Srinivas Tata is Director, Social Development Division, UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)

Jaco Cilliers is Head of Asia-Pacific Policy and Programmes
UNDP Bangkok Regional Hub

It’s 1962, and in a modest Hong Kong neighborhood, a poetic love story unfolds. Filmed almost twenty years ago, Wong Kar-wai’s seminal movie In the Mood for Love captured the world’s imagination about lifestyle in the region.

A lower-middle class existence had never looked better. Fast forward to 2018 and a new movie, set in today’s Singapore captures the world’s attention, but for very different reasons.

“Crazy Rich Asians” mixes Asian family values, education and prosperity with a consumeristic facade of jewelry, clothes and luxury travel. The result is entertaining, yet thought-provoking: when did this seismic socio-economic shift take place? When did Asia become so prosperous, yet so unequal?

Increases in income inequality have coincided with a narrower concentration of wealth in the Asia-Pacific region, now home to the greatest number of billionaires in the world. Their combined net worth is seven times the combined GDP of the region’s least developed countries.

Governments have committed to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 and aim to fulfill the promise of “leaving no one behind”. Nonetheless, research reveals a worrying trend toward greater inequality, not just in incomes, but also in access to basic services — educational attainment, health, clean energy and basic sanitation.

Gender is, perhaps, the most important lens through which these stark inequalities in access to health, basic services and rights can be understood. And they are most likely to be left behind. In addition, natural disasters, which have become more frequent and intense, disproportionately affect the poorest. Due to their socio-economic plight, their capacity to recover is also seriously weakened.

Putting “Leave no one behind” into practice

Inequalities are not inevitable – they ‘stem from policies, laws, cultural norms, corruption, and other issues that can be addressed.’ To be addressed, they require a range of well-coordinated policy interventions. If left unchecked, inequalities ultimately threaten social cohesion, economic growth and environmental sustainability.

Several countries have prioritized investments in education, health and social protection to achieve more equitable development outcomes. Mongolia, for instance, now allocates 21 per cent of public expenditure toward social protection with a specific focus on children. This has resulted in a significant reduction in stunting.

Fiscal measures are equally fundamental in addressing inequality. Tax to GDP ratios are low in a number of countries across the region, especially in South Asia. Progressive taxation remains a critical tool for wealth and income redistribution.

Some countries are taking steps to reform their tax systems while others are finding innovative and creative ways to boost venue and enforce tax collection. In 2016, for instance, Thailand introduced an inheritance tax and China is planning to do so in the coming years.

Labour market policies aimed at improving working conditions, raising the minimum wage, and offering unemployment benefits can act as a buffer to protect the poorer segments of society.

While some countries in the region, especially in Southeast Asia, have raised the minimum wage, more comprehensive measures need to be taken. With the emergence and adoption of new technologies—automation, AI, and machine-learning—many low-skilled jobs and tasks are being eliminated.

Adopting and embracing new technologies would need to be viewed through the broader lens of achieving the SDG and leaving no one behind.

Emerging trends, such as the fourth industrial revolution and climate change have wider cross-border ramifications. Countering the negative impact on inequalities will require collective and coordinated responses at the national, regional and global levels. It is apparent that a range of pro-active actions need to be taken by policymakers in the region to tackle inequality. Business as usual will just not do it this time.

The producers of the comedy blockbuster probably did not intend to stir debate on socio-economic inequalities. Nonetheless, by showing us “Crazy Rich Asians” enjoying their lavish lifestyles, they also managed to hold up a mirror and make us think about the striking contradictions lived everyday by millions.

If the region is to continue to be a growth engine for the world and a centre of global economic dynamism, it will have to show that it is not just a place where billionaires feel at home, but also a region that is charting a more secure and sustainable future for those left behind.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/reimagining-crazy-rich-asians-social-commentary-inequalities-asia-pacific/feed/0Triumph of the Right is Changing the World Orderhttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/triumph-right-changing-world-order/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=triumph-right-changing-world-order
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/triumph-right-changing-world-order/#respondThu, 29 Aug 2019 13:10:01 +0000Katharina Hofmann De Mourahttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163039Katharina Hofmann de Moura holds a diploma in political science from the Free University (FU) Berlin. She currently leads the Brazil office of Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES). Before that she was the head of the FES Mozambique (2011-2016) and worked with the FES in Berlin and Shanghai.

Supporters of president-elect Jair Bolsonaro celebrated his triumph in the early hours of Oct. 29, in front of the former captain's residence on the west side of Rio de Janeiro. The far-right candidate garnered 55.13 percent of the vote and began his four-year presidency on Jan. 1, 2019. Credit: Fernando Frazão/Agencia Brasil

By Katharina Hofmann De MouraSAO PAULO, Brazil, Aug 29 2019 (IPS)

The crisis of regional and multilateral institutions goes hand in hand with the international rise of right-wing populism. In the US, the UK, Russia, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Turkey, the Philippines and Brazil, we are experiencing the rise of right-wing populist politicians who throw headline-grabbing barbs at global compromises and the negotiating processes of supranational institutions such as the UN.

The more countries succumb to right-wing populism, the lower the chances of curbing climate change and social inequality and triggering the transition to a sustainable economic model.

While criticism of economic globalisation came predominantly from the left in the past, it’s currently becoming the core narrative of the Right. All over the world, right-wing populists are making protectionism the key theme of their regime.

They are using frustration with the social upheavals of neoliberal globalisation as a narrative. Job losses due to relocations, the decline of whole industrial sites, concerns about uncontrolled immigration and the search for identity in a multipolar world are skilfully exploited. The result is a historic, authoritarian-style populist ‘backlash’.

Despite their anti-globalisation rhetoric, however, the right-wing populists are not convincing protagonists against free trade. Rather, they are usually aligned with or even part of economic and financial elites. Their target group is the lower middle class who often does not actually benefit from their policies.

People in this electoral group feel that they are net losers from globalisation. In the populists’ promises, they see compensation for the perceived and sometimes real loss of national sovereignty.

Katharina Hofmann De Moura

Right-wing populists are making inroads into the centres of political power because they focus on the issues that are causing uncertainty and growing inequality: fear of downward social mobility, unemployment and lack of prospects.

The globalisation of right-wing populism

Alignment of these global right-wingers is progressing apace. For instance, current Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro based his election campaign on Donald Trump’s strategy. ‘The Movement’, headed by Steve Bannon, Trump’s former election campaign advisor, has successfully forged links in Europe and Latin America as well as the US.

The formula is always the same: building up the national economy as a bastion against foreign influence while attacking the left for supposedly neglecting the interests of the majority of the population in favour of a ‘politics of identity’ geared towards minorities and a snobbish urban electorate.

The Western model of liberal democracy, so heavily influenced by Germany in the post-war era, is visibly ailing.

The right-wing populists rely on dividing society and pit various population groups and their interests against each other. Brazil provides a powerful example of this. ‘Only vegans are interested in nature,’ was Bolsonaro’s response to accusations of large-scale environmental destruction.

Accordingly, ‘America First’ has become ‘Brasil Primeiro’. The focus on neoliberal economic policy is underpinned with contemptuous remarks against minorities, extending as far as incitement to violence. Society is extremely polarised and the centre is fading away.

In a WhatsApp campaign focused on inadequate public safety and spiralling corruption, Bolsonaro managed to win the elections in the largest and, until the controversial removal of Dilma Roussef in 2016, most progressively governed country in Latin America.

The Brazilian election campaign is a good example of how right-wing movements use ‘social’ media to get closer to the people. They convey a sense of direct influence and apparent power and portray themselves on Twitter as ‘down-to-earth’.

Bolsonaro denies the authenticity of satellite images that show how deforestation of the Amazon has doubled since he took office, and summarily dismissed the director of the renowned INPE institute (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais) when it published the corresponding data.

Historical denial is also part of the package, such his ‘own account’ of the military dictatorship, shamelessly praising torture. Right-wing populist movements manipulate citizens and employ an anti-intellectualism, a hatred of the so-called ‘elite’ – which obviously means the educational rather than the economic elite.

The right-wing populist is a self-styled ‘straightforward man’ of the people. The anti-politician is coming to the fore. Ideological confrontation is the aim, not least in order to deflect from the results of his own economic policy – Brazil remains mired in an economic crisis, with growth of just 0.8 per cent.

The rise of right-wing populism is exacerbating the crisis of the international order. The unprecedented rise of China is weakening Europe’s position as a global democratic power, while also challenging the decades-long formula of ‘democracy combined with economic growth’.

Economic development just seems to be achievable more quickly without democracy, as democratic processes require votes and compromises and everything is based on dialogue. That’s why many countries in the South admire the rise of China and not division-wracked Europe.

The Western model of liberal democracy, so heavily influenced by Germany in the post-war era, is visibly ailing. Many analysts are already talking of the end of the liberal international order. Pressure on the European states will grow, as the upcoming emerging nations show no ambitions to assume regional or multilateral responsibility.

For instance, the Brazilian president says, ‘The Amazon is ours, not yours,’ and brooks no criticism from Europe. No international responsibility and no external interference is the guiding principle of authoritarian rulers.

Although it is currently weakened, Brazil has a well-organised left-wing civil society as well as trade unions and the Workers’ Party.

Gone is the optimistic era of global governance that only recently was largely shaped by the BRICS alliance (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). BRICS embodied the ‘rise of the South’, aimed at building a better world on an equal footing with the North.

The euphoria of multilateralism has since faded away. Whereas there were still hopes in the early 2000s that the emerging nations would become ‘anchor countries’, taking responsibility for regional integration and democratisation, most of their heads of state are now populists.

They too are looking for new alliances, but under different premises. So, the world is indeed converging, but only because of a growth in populism in Europe rather than an upturn in democracy in the South. Whole new alliances are being forged.

For instance, on the UN Human Rights Council, Bolsonaro is backing the Arab nations, which criticise the term ‘gender’ and jointly aim to stand up for ‘traditional family values’.

So what’s left for the left?

Left-wing governments cannot resolve this dilemma in the short term. The left’s partly self-inflicted loss of power because of its naive embracing of globalised free trade has been underestimated.

Now, business owners like Blackrock and the large multinationals have hit on a hitherto unknown form of capital accumulation that produces a form of wealth redolent of feudal times. Big corporations control social media, enabling them to build up their own influence even more and further undermine that of politicians (a phenomenon now known as ‘corporate capture’).

According to research by the Folha de São Paulo newspaper, owners of large stores and restaurant chains paid 12 million reais (€3 million) per WhatsApp campaign to service providers, ensuring mass distribution of lots of fake news against the Workers’ Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores) in the Brazilian election campaign. Bolsonaro’s supporters then forwarded this fake news to their individual contact lists in a snowball process.

Democratic politicians were no match for the right in terms of their method – but that’s alright, as it is illegal. Before the 2018 elections, election campaign financing by companies was banned for the first time in Brazil’s history. The above-mentioned business owners had to pay fines, yet the elections were declared valid.

However, the Brazilian left is using social media to mobilise protests, for example against cuts to the education budget and health and social programmes, against liberalisation of weapons laws, in favour of women’s and LGTBI rights, and against an unfair pension reform.

Although it is currently weakened, Brazil has a well-organised left-wing civil society as well as trade unions and the Workers’ Party. And they will not readily give into right-wing populism.

Katharina Hofmann de Moura holds a diploma in political science from the Free University (FU) Berlin. She currently leads the Brazil office of Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES). Before that she was the head of the FES Mozambique (2011-2016) and worked with the FES in Berlin and Shanghai.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/triumph-right-changing-world-order/feed/0UNICEF’s Goodwill Envoy a Messenger of ill-Will, Complain Criticshttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/unicefs-goodwill-envoy-messenger-ill-will-complain-critics/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=unicefs-goodwill-envoy-messenger-ill-will-complain-critics
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/unicefs-goodwill-envoy-messenger-ill-will-complain-critics/#respondThu, 29 Aug 2019 09:36:18 +0000Thalif Deenhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163032When two-time Wimbledon tennis champion Boris Becker, a UNICEF goodwill ambassador, refused to make a commitment not to play in South Africa, a country blacklisted for its apartheid policies, the UN children’s agency stripped him of the prestigious title, back in October 1987. “I will be 20 years old this year and I am a […]

UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador Priyanka Chopra holds 5 year old Suleiman during a visit to his home in Amman, Jordan on 10 September 2017. Credit: UNICEF/UN0120373/Rich

By Thalif DeenUNITED NATIONS, Aug 29 2019 (IPS)

When two-time Wimbledon tennis champion Boris Becker, a UNICEF goodwill ambassador, refused to make a commitment not to play in South Africa, a country blacklisted for its apartheid policies, the UN children’s agency stripped him of the prestigious title, back in October 1987.

“I will be 20 years old this year and I am a good professional tennis player, but I think that I am too young to enter politics,” Becker said, while the then West German government protested the UNICEF firing, backing one of its own nationals.

And now 32 years later, another UNICEF goodwill ambassador Priyanka Chopra, a movie star and fashion model of Indian origin, is mired in a political controversy over her implicit support for the Indian armed forces poised to go to war with neighboring Pakistan over the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

“So, the goodwill ambassador has become a messenger of ill-will,’ Masood Haider, a longstanding UN correspondent for Pakistan’s leading English newspaper “Dawn”, told IPS.

At a press briefing August 22, Haider complained that UNICEF did not respond to a message seeking comments.

“I asked you about this Priyanka Chopra, the [Goodwill Ambassador], and I called UNICEF, and I called the press office… But nobody has responded at all.”

UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters: “I can tell you that, for any Goodwill Ambassador, whether it’s Ms. Chopra or anyone else, we expect them to adhere to impartial positions when they speak on behalf of UNICEF or any other organization,” he said.

“When they speak in their personal capacity, they retain the right to speak about issues of interests or concern to them. Their personal views, however, do not reflect those of the agency with which they may be affiliated with,” he added.

According to an October 1987 report in the New York Times, Horst Cerni, a director of special projects for UNICEF, said Becker’s association with UNICEF, which began in April 1986, had been terminated because Becker had failed to say that he would never return to South Africa.

Becker was blacklisted by the UN Center Against Apartheid after he played in South Africa as a member of the West German Federation’s junior team in 1984. He was, however, only 16 years old at the time, traveling with the team and trying to qualify for the main draw of a grand prix event, the Times reported.

Credit: UNICEF/2017/Jordan/Sebastian Rich

UNICEF says its Ambassadors are leaders in the entertainment industry, representing the fields of film, television, music, sports and beyond.

“They demonstrate leadership in their professions and serve as positive role models through their work”.

As the first to instill an Ambassador Programme, with the appointment of celebrated actor Danny Kaye in 1954, UNICEF’s envoys have played a critical role in raising awareness of the needs for children, and have continued to use their talent and fame to fundraise, advocate, and educate on behalf of UNICEF, says the children’s agency.

Together, UNICEF Ambassadors have proven that being a public figure can be a powerful tool in mobilizing the support necessary to improve the lives of children and ensure their basic human rights

Salim Lone, a former Director of the United Nations News and Media Division, told IPS that Chopra, with tens of millions of social media followers, made an alarming comment recently.

“War is not something that I’m really fond of, but I am patriotic,” was how the Bollywood/Hollywood superstar, who was appointed UNICEF goodwill ambassador in 2016, described her views on war amid the rising tensions between India and Pakistan, he pointed out.

“She had a few months earlier tweeted her support for her country’s armed forces as Indian jets bombed an alleged militant camp in Pakistan, risking another war, potentially nuclear this time,” said Lone, a former Spokesman for the head of the UN mission in Iraq.

He said the entire world’s stability is being beset by an escalating degradation of long-held global values, many of which were pioneered and entrenched by the United Nations.

“The organization will undermine its greatest strength, its moral credibility, if it itself succumbs to this rising scourge”

Had UNICEF spoken to Ms. Chopra after her unfortunate February tweet, as it once used to do in such situations, she would not now have gone farther and suggested that patriotism required support for war, argued Lone.

After the outcry against Chopra’s remarks about not “really loving war”, the UN explained that its envoys adhere to UN guidelines whenever they speak on behalf of the organization. However, they are free to express personal opinions on other occasions.

“That is intolerable,” said Lone. “If someone who expresses racist or misogynistic or indeed pro-war sentiments in the name of freedom of personal expression can be kept on as a UN ambassador, then the UN will be seen to be actively contributing to the degradation it was created to end”.

In any event, he said, about three decades ago, another renowned UNICEF ambassador Boris Becker played in a tennis tournament in apartheid South Africa. When he refused to give UNICEF reassurance he wouldn’t do so again, that relationship was terminated, Lone added.

Meanwhile, in a testy exchange of words at a cosmetic industry’s trade show event in California in mid- August, Chopra said; “I have many, many friends from Pakistan, and I am from India, and war is not something that I’m really fond of but I am patriotic.”

“So, I’m sorry if I hurt sentiments to people who do love me and have loved me, but I think that all of us have a sort of middle ground that we all have to walk.”

Daryl Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association, outside the P-1 area at the Semipalatinsk Test Site in Eastern Kazakhstan, August 2018.

By Daryl G. KimballWASHINGTON DC, Aug 28 2019 (IPS)

Everybody knows that nuclear weapons have been used twice in wartime and with terrible consequences. Often overlooked, however, is the large-scale, postwar use of nuclear weapons:

At least eight countries have conducted 2,056 nuclear test explosions, most of which were far larger than the bombs that leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The United States alone has detonated more than 1,030 nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, underwater, and underground.

Hundreds of thousands of people have died and millions more have suffered from radiation-related illnesses directly caused by the fallout from nuclear testing. The global scale of suffering took too long to come to light.

Secrecy ruled over safety from the start, such as 70 years ago, on Aug. 29, 1949, when the Soviet Union conducted its first nuclear test in eastern Kazakhstan near the secret town of Semipalatinsk-21.

Authorities understood that the test would expose the local population to harmful radioactive fallout, but they pushed ahead in the name of national security, only acknowledging the damage after information leaks in the late-1980s revealed that far more people were exposed to radiation, with more harmful effects, than the Kremlin had previously admitted.

Today, the Kazakh government estimates that Soviet-era testing harmed about 1.5 million people in Kazakhstan alone. A 2008 study by Kazakh and Japanese doctors estimated that the population in areas adjacent to the Semipalatinsk Test Site received an effective dose of 2,000 millisieverts of radiation during the years of testing.

In some hot spots, people were exposed to even higher levels. By comparison, the average American is exposed to about 3 millisieverts of radiation each year. The rate of cancer for people living in eastern Kazakhstan is 25 to 30 percent higher than elsewhere in the country.

By 1989, growing concerns about the health impacts of nuclear testing led ordinary Kazakh citizens to rise up and demand a test moratorium. They formed the Nevada-Semipalatinsk anti-nuclear organization.

On Oct. 5, 1991, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev announced a one-year nuclear test moratorium, which led a bipartisan U.S. congressional coalition to introduce legislation to match the Soviet test halt. In 1992 the bill became law over the protestations of President George H.W. Bush.

The following year, under pressure from civil society leaders and Congress, President Bill Clinton decided to extend the moratorium and launch talks on the global, verifiable Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which were concluded in 1996.

The CTBT has established a powerful taboo against nuclear testing. Global support for the treaty, which now has 184 state signatories, is strong, and the treaty’s International Monitoring System is fully operational and more capable than originally envisioned.

Today, for the first time since 1945, no nuclear-armed state has an active nuclear testing program.

Yet, the door to further nuclear testing remains ajar. Although the treaty has been signed by 184 states, its entry into force is being held up by eight states, most notably the United States, China, and North Korea, which have refused to ratify the pact.

Making matters worse, the Trump administration has accused Russia of cheating on the CTBT without providing evidence, has falsely asserted there is a lack of clarity about what the CTBT prohibits, and has refused to express support for bringing the CTBT into force.

Given their existing nuclear test moratoria and signatures on the treaty, Washington and Beijing already bear most CTBT-related responsibilities. But their failure to ratify has denied them and others the full security benefits of the treaty, including short-notice, on-site inspections to better detect and deter clandestine nuclear testing.

The treaty’s entry into force also would prevent further health injury from nuclear testing and allow responsible states to better address the dangerous legacy of nuclear testing. In Kazakhstan, for example, access to the vast former test site remains restricted. Many areas will remain unusable until and unless the radioactive contamination can be remediated.

In the Marshall Islands, where the United States detonated massive aboveground nuclear tests in the 1940s and 1950s, several atolls are still heavily contaminated, indigenous populations have been displaced, and some buried radioactive waste could soon leak into the ocean.

The U.S. Congress should act to include the downwinders affected by the first U.S. test in 1945 in the health monitoring program established through the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990.

For the safety and security of future generations and out of respect for the people harmed by nuclear testing, our generation must act. It is time to close and lock the door on nuclear testing by pushing the CTBT holdout states to ratify the treaty and address more comprehensively the devasting human and environmental damage of the nuclear weapons era.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/close-door-nuclear-testing/feed/0Sudan Transition an “Opportunity” to End Darfur Crisishttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/sudan-transition-opportunity-end-darfur-crisis/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=sudan-transition-opportunity-end-darfur-crisis
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/sudan-transition-opportunity-end-darfur-crisis/#respondTue, 27 Aug 2019 08:39:50 +0000James Reinlhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=162999Sudan’s transition to civilian rule offers a chance to end the ethnic violence that plagues the western province of Darfur and end a peacekeeping mission there, a top United Nations official said Monday. Jean-Pierre Lacroix, the U.N. under-secretary-general for peace operations, told the U.N. Security Council that the peacekeeping force in Darfur, known as UNAMID, […]

UNAMID peacekeepers in Dafur could be scaled back from November if the situation on the ground improves. This picture of peacekeepers is dated 2012. Courtesy: Albert González Farran/UNAMID

By James ReinlUNITED NATIONS, Aug 27 2019 (IPS)

Sudan’s transition to civilian rule offers a chance to end the ethnic violence that plagues the western province of Darfur and end a peacekeeping mission there, a top United Nations official said Monday.

Jean-Pierre Lacroix, the U.N. under-secretary-general for peace operations, told the U.N. Security Council that the peacekeeping force in Darfur, known as UNAMID, could be scaled back from November if the situation on the ground improves.

A complex civilian-military transitional government is set to rule Sudan for a little over three years until elections can be held, following a mass protest movement that forced the ouster of longtime authoritarian President Omar al-Bashir in April.

“This is an opportunity to put a definitive end to the conflict in Darfur,” said Lacroix.

“Donor support will be critical more than ever to assist the simultaneous transitions in Darfur and wider Sudan, particularly considering the economic crisis that triggered the political change.”

In June, council members agreed to “pause” the drawdown of UNAMID’s 5,600-strong blue helmet force, which was deployed to Darfur in 2007 amid fighting between rebels and Sudanese government forces.

The new government in Khartoum has pledged to revive peace efforts in Darfur and other hinterlands, though it remains unclear whether the new sovereign council’s civilian or military members will wield more influence.

The political shift in Khartoum has not changed the situation in Darfur, where anti-government rebels clash with the Sudanese armed forces and a paramilitary group called the Rapid Support Forces, Lacroix said via video link.

Sudan’s ambassador to the U.N., Omer Mohamed Ahmed Siddig, urged council members to lift an arms embargo on Darfur and to start withdrawing peacekeepers by an agreed deadline of June 2020.

“Realisation of peace is my government’s priority during the coming six months,” Siddig said in New York.

“We call on the international community to join my government in inducing the revolutionaries who fought for toppling the previous regime to join hands with us to uplift the plight of our people who suffered the consequences of war.”

Darfur is not Sudan’s only flashpoint. On Sunday, the sovereign council formally declared a state of emergency in the Red Sea city of Port Sudan, following clashes between tribesmen there that police say have killed at least 16 people.

Addressing the council, British diplomat Jonathan Allen spoke of “hope and optimism” at the “beginning of a new chapter in Sudan’s history” that could tackle the bitter ethnic splits in a nation of some 40 million people.

“The new government has committed to achieve a fair, comprehensive and sustainable peace in Sudan and prioritise the peace process,” Allen said.

“We call on all sides but in particular the armed movements to engage constructively, immediately and without preconditions in negotiations to finally deliver a peaceful solution to the conflict in Darfur.”

The military overthrew Bashir on Apr. 11 after months of mass demonstrations, but protesters continued taking to the streets — fearing the military could cling to power — and demanded a swift transition to a civilian government.

A power-sharing deal between protest leaders and Sudan’s Transitional Military Council (TMC) was signed earlier this month, ending months of political chaos.

But tensions between the military and civilians are expected to feature prominently in new Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok’s unruly transitional government.

Beyond politics, Sudan has been wracked by flooding across 17 of its 18 states that has claimed the lives of at least 62 people, the government says. Thousands of people have been displaced by the floods, which are worse in areas along the river Nile.